Reply to I have a problem with the definition of Rich

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "I have a problem with the definition of Rich"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]I keep hearing that I am on the verge of being "rich" because combined, my school teacher husband and I are on the verge of making $250K.   Why don't I feel rich? [/quote]

I can't explain your feelings. But, much of the focus on the $250K number is because that is the point at which Obama wants to increase the marginal tax rate. There are a couple of things to keep in mind about this:

1) as I said, the tax rate is marginal and will only apply to taxable income above $250,000;
2) the proposed increase is 3%

You probably have $10-$15 thousand in deductions. So, before the tax increase even hits you, you would have to be making in the neighborhood of $265,000. Then, the tax would be an extra $300 per $10,000 which doesn't seem excessive. If your income grew to $300,000 your additional tax burden would be $1050. If your income was $400,000 you would see an additional $4050 tax. Still hardly noticeable. So, when Obama talks about the rich paying more, he means those who are really rich. Because those who are like you and "don't feel rich" aren't rich and won't be paying very much more -- if anything at all.

[/quote]

There's one more thing to keep in mind.  As of 2009, the "1 percenters" paid almost 37% of all incomes paid into the Treasury.  Yes, more than 1 in 3 of all (ALL!) tax dollars was paid by just 1 percent of the population.  The top 5% paid almost 60% of all tax dollars collected. The people between 5 and 10%?  They paid another 11% of all tax dollars.  Thinking about it in reverse, the bottom 50 of wage earners, the poorest of the poor, only paid 2.25% of all taxes collected. (Meaning, they are not taxed.  Hardly at all.)  The bottom 75%?  They paid just 12.3% of all taxes.  Again, hardly taxed.  At all.  You can't give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes to begin with.  And that's pretty much 75% of all wage earners in this country, so says the IRS.

[The source of this data is the IRS.  Link at the taxfoundation.org (see Table 6): http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table3]  [/quote]

A response to above poster, below:

Yes, Romney thought he'd whip people up with that claim too. As in , " huh, well gosh it sounds unfair that 1 % of pop pay 60% of all taxes" Well, I couldn't rebut Mitt, since I was not the Dem candidate, so I'll settle for rebutting you:
[b]
You can't get blood from a stone, PP. [/b]

The 47% of Americans that you and Mitt are referring to, pay little to no taxes because they have little to no disposable income left over after: rent, food, utilities, child care, health insurance( only poverty level gets medicaid),  and the clothes on their back.

The top 1% of income earners on the othr hand, after they clothe themselves ( spending $100,000's to do so : rolex's ,hand made italian shoes, and custom suits), feed themselves( eating out lunch and dinner every day, Whole foods for all food items, prepared by their personal chef), houses themselves( 2-30 Million dollar home as main home, plus vacation home in Utah valued at 3 Million, another in South Of France valued at 3 Million),  still have several million in income a year left over to , yes, pay taxes.

The taxes paid by those who can afford to pay are used for the greater good of ALL , including infrastructure( roads, brideges , tunnels, electrical grid), public schools, public hospitals, waste disposal, water purification .....

[b]THat is t[/b]h[b]e difference between the social contract[[/b]b] in America, and the social contract in[/b] [b]places where the rich get to keep all of their money, like Pakistan.[/b] Question: have you ever been to Karachi ? Are the poor Pakistanis just lazy " takers" too. Are there public hospitals shit holes because their people are " stupid" > No, its because there is no public money to spend because no politician in Pakistan has the balls to make the rich pay their share.

Obama is not a " socialists" !!@#! Claiming so, just shows how far America is on the slide to letting the rich off the hook , like in Pakistan. In in [b]real socialist countries[/b] like Sweden or Norway, the rich pay 60% tax rate and guess what , speeding tickets are assessed based on your tax returns , which the cop writing you the speeding ticket has access to on his hand held computer. Drive 90 mph in a 55 mph zone in Sweeden and pay a $50 ticket if your poor and a $50,000 ticket if you are a multi- millionaire. Now that, is the kind of social justice that keeps EVERYONE obeying the law. The Sweedes also have a law that no CEO can make more than 30X the salary of the lowest paid employee. It doesn't seem to be killing IKEA. How is it that this company continues to outsell American companies? Hmmm?? To top it off, these " socialist" countries have better schools, smarter kids and a healthier population. I think everyone paying their fair share is damn healthy for everyone, even if there is no budget problem.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics